Dustydog said:
Thanks John
We poor caravanners always seem to be on the back foot. That's life I suppose. Thanks for your further advice.
This state of play is not unique to caravanners, but to all retail disputes.
However and to be fair there are some retailers/manufacturers who are known for their generosity towards customer complaints, and simply do not quibble when a product is reported as faulty.
Businesses have to take a pragmatic view, and balance the cost to of disputing a fault, compared to the financial loss of simply accepting it and replacing or refunding. Unfortunately there can't be generalised approach to this across all retail products as it will depend on the individual circumstances
apart from the commercial considerations, with some types of fault there may also be legal implications especially where safety may be called into question.
Where a product is agreed to be faulty, generally from the businesses perspective it is more cost effective to replace a faulty item than to refund it because the loss to the business is the cost of the product. which is partly offset by the profit from the original sale. Also depending on what product and its fault is, it may be recycled in part of full, and offered as a manufacturers second. :dry:
Products with a historic tendency to generate guarantee/warranty claims tend to have an increased element of their sale price budgeted to cover such claims. The caravan industry with its dismal history of faults is a past master at this, and a significant element of the sale price is there to cover claims. This inflates the sale prices, and I know from years ago one manufacture effectively was adding up to 10% to the price of their caravans as a contingency for claims. Sadly the buying public have become conditioned to accept these inflated prices as the norm, which means where a product does not generate any faults, then that contingency is converted to profit.
I should point out I'm not against profit. Profit is essential to keep business afloat and allowing scope for development. I do detest excessive profiteering where that excess is generated out of the misfortune of the customer.
Businesses that look after customers do better. B) There is the intangible value to the business of the "good will" that is generated when a customer is placated quickly at the first attempt. In caravanning circles there is one manufacture of a mover who has played a blinder in this respect, and continually receives glowing praise for their after sales service despite the probability that other manufactures may offer very similar service, or their products may be actually more reliable
hmy: Sadly the necessary data to confirm this contention is commercially very sensitive and is not available.
Whilst I have questioned the morality of having a great after sales service, I can't argue about its success, and as long as products have a tendency to fail, it should be beholden of all businesses to try and emulate the quality of service the market leader offers.